Regional differences in the prevalence of known Type 2 diabetes mellitus in 45–74 years old individuals: Results from six population‐based studies in Germany (DIAB‐CORE Consortium)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: In Germany, regional data on the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus are lacking for health-care planning and detection of risk factors associated with this disease. We analysed regional variations in the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes and treatment with antidiabetic agents. METHODS: Data of subjects aged 45-74 years from five regional population-based studies and one nationwide study conducted between 1997 and 2006 were analysed. Information on self-reported diabetes, treatment, and diagnosis of diabetes were compared. Type 2 diabetes prevalence estimates (95% confidence interval) from regional studies were directly standardized to the German population (31 December 2007). RESULTS: Of the 11,688 participants of the regional studies, 1008 had known Type 2 diabetes, corresponding to a prevalence of 8.6% (8.1-9.1%). For the nationwide study, a prevalence of 8.2% (7.3-9.2%) was estimated. Prevalence was higher in men (9.7%; 8.9-10.4%) than in women (7.6%; 6.9-8.3%). The regional standardized prevalence was highest in the east with 12.0% (10.3-13.7%) and lowest in the south with 5.8% (4.9-6.7%). Among persons with Type 2 diabetes, treatment with oral antidiabetic agents was more frequently reported in the south (56.9%) and less in the northeast (46.0%), whereas treatment with insulin alone was more frequently reported in the northeast (21.6%) than in the south (16.4%). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of known Type 2 diabetes showed a southwest-to-northeast gradient within Germany, which is in accord with regional differences in the distribution of risk factors for Type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, the treatment with antidiabetic agents showed regional differences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it